In Pakistan, on April 10 — Following the latest round of U.S.-Iran nuclear discussions, an announcement emerged from the Kremlin stating that Russia is prepared to step in and manage the ongoing diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. and Iran. It’s noteworthy how Russia remains uninvolved in direct peace talks or diplomacy regarding Ukraine yet offers mediation elsewhere, showcasing its self-perceived significance as a key geopolitical player. This assertiveness can be attributed to Russia’s adept handling of its global sway, particularly vis-à-vis major powers such as the United States, despite the end of the Soviet era.

Currently, Russia holds significant sway over the nuclear negotiations taking place through multiple channels. While we refrain from dissecting the U.S.-Iran nuclear dialogue prematurely, let’s look closely at the continuing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Moscow’s bold stance in participating in these crucial discussions. One cannot overstress how the Russo-Ukrainian War has transformed into a complex labyrinth where combatants find themselves trapped without respite; their efforts further stifled by the support blocs aligned with each nation blocking all exits.

In contrast to the Cold War period, contemporary Russia has become extensively interconnected with the world via substantial oil exports and other key commodities crossing international boundaries. Besides its formidable military capabilities and arms industry, various global players have vested economic and political stakes involved as well. Meanwhile, Ukraine serves as a critical geopolitical fulcrum because of its abundant resource wealth, which makes it essential for major world powers. Consequently, both nations wield considerable influence over garnering focused interest toward their respective crises. Assertive in this conflict, Russia assumes an indispensable position within Northeastern and Southern Global zones. It’s partly why Moscow holds a pivotal place in forthcoming discussions between the United States and Iran concerning nuclear matters.

Let’s dissect the impact—whether positive or negative—that Russia’s involvement is having on other nations in this area.

Even as Western sanctions persist against Russia, both China and India have boosted their imports of Russian oil, maintaining the country’s economic stability. Many European nations continue to depend on Russian energy supplies, thus avoiding a full-scale economic embargo. Additionally, cooperation between Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ members alongside Russia helps stabilize global oil prices, which further supports Russia’s wartime economy financially. This robustness enables Russia to keep pursuing its military actions without imminent risk of economic failure. The scenario underscores how this conflict has contributed to the emergence of a multi-polar world order, diminishing Western hegemony in favor of a more dispersed geopolitical framework.

Consider China and India; both nations have adopted fairly impartial positions, refraining from wholeheartedly supporting either Russia or openly aligning with Ukraine. In China’s case, maintaining a strategic alliance with Russia provides significant economic advantages amid shifting geopolitical dynamics worldwide. Meanwhile, India aims to keep the situation stable so as not to jeopardize its broader regional objectives should the conflict escalate uncontrollably. The Middle Eastern countries, such as Iran, contribute by supplying unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to Russia, thereby enhancing their military collaboration. On the other hand, South Korea and Japan express support for Ukraine without directly engaging in opposition towards Russia. Such fragmented international alignment hinders the formation of a unified global stance against Russian actions.

Another factor contributing to Russia’s steadfast position and its boldness in intervening in international nuclear discussions stems from historical developments. Specifically, the Dead Hand system, created during the Cold War era, aimed to guarantee that even after experiencing a full decapitating strike, Russia would retain the capability to execute a counterattack using nuclear weapons. This policy, which exemplifies mutual assured destruction (MAD), persists in casting a prolonged shadow over worldwide security concerns.

This single capability compels Russia’s opponents to proceed with caution, since any misjudged intensification might lead to irreparable outcomes. It may be this reason that stops NATO, despite its superior military strength, from directly intervening in Ukraine. While the U.S. and its partners have generously supplied military support, intelligence, and training to Ukraine, they continue to limit themselves to non-direct approaches. Commonly mentioned factors for this restraint involve the potential for expanding the conflict across Europe, facing economic fallout, and internal disagreements among allied nations. Nonetheless, underlying all these rationales could very well be an apprehension about escalating tensions into the nuclear realm, especially considering systems such as Dead Hand.

This scenario puts Ukraine in a vulnerable state: they get sufficient backing to keep up their resistance but not ample support to conclusively overcome Russia.

Therefore, what steps could be taken to achieve some sort of resolution?

The best course of action is to employ psychological strategies to pave the way for a diplomatic resolution. Since direct military involvement is mostly out of the question, the West has turned to psychological operations to weaken Russia’s position. This approach will also be necessary when dealing with future global nuclear negotiations.

The psychological operations aimed at Russia conducted by the West include:

Primarily focusing on Economic Sanctions. Additionally, strategic uncertainty perpetuated by NATO leaders implies that military alternatives stay within reach but avoids concrete steps, thus maintaining ambiguity for Russia. The information warfare approach employed involves battling through stories, propaganda, and mental strain, often disseminated across digital channels. This strategy fosters internal division inside Russia and depicts Putin as a solitary leader.

Nevertheless, regrettably, this continuous psychological and informational confrontation makes a diplomatic resolution seem improbable. Despite facing sanctions, Russia has managed to navigate the economic challenges by expanding commerce with nations outside the Western sphere. In contrast, Ukraine’s economic framework lies in ruins, and the pressure on its citizens continues to escalate. Both parties appear to be awaiting the moment when their adversary will become too drained to continue fighting.

The nuclear ‘Dead Hand’ standoff, coupled with psychological operations and economic incentives, has formed an endless cycle, akin to a maze. This complexity makes it challenging to foresee the conclusion of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, by examining the current circumstances, we may anticipate future developments as new Iranian nuclear bunkers are being constructed.

In a world where major nations conduct their affairs discreetly, deep-seated stances, diplomatic breakdowns, the looming threat of nuclear deterrence, and reluctance to engage internationally combine. This scenario forewarns us: as negotiations centered around nuclear issues become central to international relations, our planet transforms into an endless labyrinth. Here, instability and oppression form the sole steadfast barriers for those navigating within.

The journalist serves as an international news reporter and can be contacted at ommamausman@gmail.com.